Michael Platt

operates in a number of them and earns there only around £30 million. Despite the concerns, many still believe Witty’s pledge marks a major step forward for neglected diseases and developing countries. “He is breaking the mould in validating the concept of patent pools,” said Rohit Malpani at Oxfam’s access to medicines campaign. “It is a big step forward. It is welcome that he is inviting other companies to take this on.” But positive moves in the development of medicines by freeing up patents by GSK in certain areas is not a signal for a wider loosening on intellectual property. If anything, Europe is getting tougher in protecting its patents. The EU’s trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton, is currently pushing developing countries to accept stringent provisions on intellectual property. This goal “prioritises the rights of patent holders at the expense of access to medicines, jeopardising health in developing countries,” writes Monika Kosininska, secretary-general of the European Public Health Alliance in a letter to The Guardian. “The European Commission has made commitments in multilateral fora, such as the WHO and the WTO’s 2001 Doha declaration, to support health in developing countries. The behaviour of Ashton undermines these commitments,” she says. not win him many friends in the other drug companies,” but he hoped they would join him in an effort to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries. Médecins Sans Frontières, a leading health NGO, says Witty’s price cut for drugs is welcome but not a panacea for availability of drugs. And the charity is also disappointed that HIV/ Aids patents have not been included in the proposed patent pool. The charity World Vision’s director of advocacy, Mike French, said: “Slashing drug prices is good. But, without the necessary health infrastructure, many won’t be able to access those drugs. Therefore, investment by GSK, along with the knowledge pooling, makes this a landmark announcement.” Drug companies are criticised for failing to deliver for the rich world as well as the poor. They are often accused of focusing their efforts on making barely altered copies of other companies’ billion-dollar sellers rather than working on diseases where there are few treatments, such as Alzheimer’s. Critics of the drug companies acknowledged that in these moves GSK was making major strides but said that it could go further: promising 20 per cent of profits from sales in the least developed countries does not amount to a huge sum as GSK only